اینترنت

دسته: 1

  • California acts to protect children from ‘addictive’ social media

    California acts to protect children from ‘addictive’ social media


    Credit: Pexels

    Ratcheting up efforts in California to protect children from the negative effects of social media, Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed landmark legislation to combat the powerful “addictive” strategies tech companies use to keep children online, often for hours on end. 

    The legislation is the second of its kind in the nation, and is similar to a New York law signed by Gov. Kathy Hochul earlier this year. 

    The bill will prohibit online platforms, which are not named in the legislation, from knowingly providing minors with what are called in the industry “addictive feeds” without parental consent. 

    The bill also prohibits social media platforms from sending notifications to minors during school hours and late at night.

    “Every parent knows the harm social media addiction can inflict on their children — isolation from human contact, stress and anxiety, and endless hours wasted late into the night,” Newsom said in a statement issued over the weekend. “With this bill, California is helping protect children and teenagers from purposely designed features that feed these destructive habits.”

    Still on Newsom’s desk for his signature is a bill that would require school districts to limit student access to cellphones during school hours. Because Newsom called for school districts to do just that earlier this year, there is a strong possibility that he will sign that legislation as well. 

    Authored by Sen. Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley, the legislation Newsom signed marks a growing effort to rein in the impact of all-encompassing technology that has revolutionized ways of communicating and brought significant benefits — but whose harmful effects on children are only now becoming clearer. 

    It is almost certainly the case that few parents, and even fewer children, are aware of the complex, and hugely effective, systems tech companies employ to keep users on their platforms, often for hours on end. 

    Addictive feeds are generated by automated systems known as algorithms and are intended to keep users engaged by suggesting content based on groups, friends, topics or headlines they may have clicked on in the past. 

    Instead, the law would make “chronological feeds” the default setting on social media platforms accessed by children. These feeds are generated only by posts from people they follow, in the order they were uploaded. 

    “Social media companies will no longer have the right to addict our kids to their platforms, sending them harmful and sensational content that our kids don’t want and haven’t searched for,” Skinner said.

    The legislation follows Newsom’s signing of the California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act two years ago. Authored by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, D-Oakland, it requires online platforms to consider the best interest of child users and to establish default privacy and safety settings in order to safeguard children’s mental and physical health and well-being.

    The law expands on previous legislation approved by Congress in 1998, the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) and California’s Parent Accountability and Child Protection Act (AB 2511), approved by the Legislature in 2018.  

    The 2022 bill requires businesses with an online presence to complete a Data Protection Impact Assessment before offering new online services, products, or features likely to be accessed by children.

    It also prohibits companies that provide online services from using a child’s personal information, collecting, selling or retaining a child’s physical location, profiling a child by default, and leading or encouraging children to provide personal information.

    But its passage underscored the headwinds that efforts to regulate social media can run into. Immediately on passage of the 2022 law, NetChoice, a national trade association of online businesses, including giants like Amazon, Google, Meta and TikTok, filed a lawsuit to prevent its implementation. It argued that the law violated the First Amendment by restricting free speech and that companies would be limited in their editorial decisions over what content they could put out on their sites.   A district court issued a preliminary injunction against the entire law. The state appealed its decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which upheld parts of the lower court’s ruling, but allowed other parts of the law to go into effect.

    It is not known whether tech companies will similarly challenge Skinner’s legislation. 





    Source link

  • Q&A: Big drop in enrollment of low-income undocumented students at California’s public universities

    Q&A: Big drop in enrollment of low-income undocumented students at California’s public universities


    People rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court in 2019 as oral arguments are heard in the wake of President Donald Trump’s decision to end the federal Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. The University of California brought the case to the court.

    Credit: AP Photo/Alex Brandon

    The number of low-income undocumented students newly enrolled in the University of California and California State University plummeted 50% between 2016-17 and 2022-23, according to a study released this month.

    The study by William C. Kidder of the UCLA Civil Rights Project and Kevin R. Johnson of the UC Davis School of Law comes at a moment of heightened debate about policy proposals aimed at defraying the cost of college for undocumented students, who are not eligible for federal Pell Grants and often lack legal work permits. Gov. Gavin Newsom on Sunday vetoed Assembly Bill 2586, which would have cleared the way for undocumented students to take on-campus jobs at the state’s public colleges and universities.

    “Given the gravity of the potential consequences of this bill, which include potential criminal and civil liability for state employees, it is critical that the courts address the legality of such a policy and the novel legal theory behind this legislation before proceeding,” Newsom wrote in his veto statement. “Seeking declaratory relief in court — an option available to the University of California — would provide such clarity.”

    Johnson wrote in an email that Newsom’s veto of AB 2586, also called the Opportunity for All Act, “will make it more difficult for undocumented students to attend public universities in California.” 

    “I hope that the University of California and California State University systems will consider ways to help financially support undocumented students,” he wrote. “Scholarships, fee remissions, and the like must be considered if lawful employment, as would have been permitted by the Opportunity for All Act, is not possible.”

    Since 2012, the federal program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, has allowed certain undocumented immigrants to temporarily work legally in the U.S. and live without fear of immediate deportation, but the program has ceased processing new applicants due to legal challenges.

    “When we think that we’re seeing a decrease in enrollment in California, CSU and UC, with all the support provided by the university and by the legislature in terms of allowing undocumented students to pay resident fees, you have to imagine that in other states it’s much worse in terms of drop off in enrollment of undocumented students,” Johnson wrote.

    Johnson and Kidder’s study seeks to fill an important gap in California policymakers’ understanding of how undocumented student enrollment has changed over time. 

    The state’s colleges and universities historically have avoided collecting official data on undocumented students, mindful of those students’ vulnerable legal status. To solve that problem, Kidder and Johnson examined the number of students awarded a Cal Grant under the California Dream Act, a state financial aid program for which low-income undocumented students are eligible. The numbers likely represent a subset of all undocumented college students at Cal State and UC campuses, since they do not include students who applied for a Dream Act award but were not eligible or who were offered an award but didn’t accept it.

    Kidder and Johnson find that Dream Act awardees at CSU and UC appear to have peaked around the 2018-19 and 2019-20 school years.

    At CSU, they found that new and returning Dream Act awardees fell 30% between 2019-20 and 2022-23, outpacing an almost 7% decline in other Cal Grant awardees at CSU during the same period, as well as falling undergraduate enrollment within the university system.

    The story was similar at UC campuses, where Dream Act awardees dropped by roughly 31% between 2019-20 and 2022-23, a period in which other Cal Grant awardees only dipped 1%.

    Kidder and Johnson tie the decline in Dream Act awardees to the demise of the deferred action program. The Trump administration moved to rescind the program in 2017, and subsequent efforts to revive it have been stymied by court decisions that allow current DACA recipients to renew work permits but block new applicants. As a result, most current undergraduate college students are not eligible to apply for DACA and the youngest current DACA recipients are about 22 years old.

    That said, the study does not use the kind of granular data that would allow the researchers to test explicitly whether the rescission of DACA is causing the decline in Dream Act awardees. Previous research has found that the program boosted graduation rates among undocumented high school students and that harsher immigration enforcement correlated with lower academic achievement for undocumented K-12 students. Kidder and Johnson cite those studies — as well as the similar results they observed across UC and CSU — as pointing toward the likelihood that an external force is behind declining Dream Act awardees. 

    Supporters of AB 2586, the bill Newsom vetoed this weekend, argued that the UC system is not subject to a federal prohibition on hiring undocumented workers because it is part of the state of California. Johnson is among 29 scholars to sign a legal memo building that case, which was published by the UCLA Center for Immigration Law and Policy.

    Neither CSU nor UC took a formal position on the bill. But in a letter to lawmakers, the UC expressed concerns that hiring undocumented students could jeopardize “billions of dollars in existing federal contracts and grants.” The university system also said the bill could expose students, their families and UC employees to criminal or civil prosecution. In July, CSU officials similarly said the bill rested on an untested legal theory that could result in litigation against the system. 

    EdSource recently spoke with Kidder and Johnson to discuss their forthcoming article in the Journal of College & University Law. This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

    What do we understand about the impact that DACA had on undocumented high school students, and what has happened since the Trump administration began challenging the Obama-era program?

    Johnson: The data that we were able to put together shows that, basically, the dismantling of DACA —-the refusal to accept new applications – is having an impact that one might expect. While DACA created some kind of stability, initially, in high school students and boosted college enrollments, its dismantling has had the effect of reducing undocumented enrollment and destabilizing students and, the way I’d put it, it’s making them wonder whether they have a future in this country. …

    It’s a wake-up call in all kinds of ways for colleges and universities to claim that they want to be open, be more accessible.

    What did you find when you looked at how many students at Cal State and University of California campuses received California Dream Act grants in recent years?

    Kidder: New California Dream Act awardees, both freshmen and students, had declined by half between 2017 and 2023, which is just a remarkable drop. … I was a little surprised at the scale of the decline, just given the situation in California and how it’s different from Texas or Florida or some other states where there’s greater opposition and hostility to supporting undocumented students.

    Do you see the same pattern of decline in awards among California residents who are citizens and who received Cal Grants during this period?

    Kidder: We tried to adopt what social scientists call a “difference in difference” methodology. That’s where you study the rate of change over time with one group compared to a matched comparison group. 

    So, we looked at low-income students who are not undocumented, primarily U.S. citizen residents of California — who are going to the same high schools; the same age group; similar, but not exactly the same, income levels; very similar academic profiles in terms of high school GPAs, etc. We did that to confirm that there weren’t other systemic effects on the California budget and economy that might be unaccounted for outside factors. 

    What we found is that other Cal Grant students, both within UC and within CSU, were flat at the same time that both the undocumented students at UC and CSU had this 50% decline. So it did shore up our inference that there was something uniquely challenging in the current environment for undocumented college students.

    You write that back in the 2016-17 school year, 56% of new Dream Act students attended a UC or Cal State campus, while the remainder attended a California Community College campus. By the 2022-23 school year, that dynamic had flipped: 40% of those Dream Act students attended UC and Cal State, and the rest attended community college. What do you make of that shift?

    Kidder: We did include in the data that we are capturing not just new freshmen, but also new entering transfer students. It is of concern that somehow, in recent years … it’s not translating into those (community college) students still having higher education access to a university education through the transfer pathway. There’s a blockage there, and that was clear in the data. 

    From a public policy level, that’s troubling, given that these are students, many of whom have been living in California since age 5 or age 8, and the California taxpayers and the system of California laws has invested in their future. For those students to be blocked in their pathway lowers their future life chances. 

    State university officials can’t control what happens with DACA. If educators at UC and Cal State are concerned about losing undocumented students, what could they do to encourage those students to enroll and help them to stay enrolled?

    Johnson: I think one of the assumptions in the question is that there’s limited possibilities for what the university could do. It was the University of California that brought the lawsuit that ended up in the Supreme Court stopping the rescission of DACA, and that was a controversial move in some quarters. But I do think the university– legally, politically and otherwise — is a powerful advocate for students, and can and has, at various times, pushed for reform and change. 

    I think that the university, if they’re really committed to undocumented students, can support things like the Opportunity for All Act, which has been basically briefed and set on their desk, showing that it might be legal for the University of California to allow its students, all students, to be employed by the University of California. …

    I think that the university could also think about, “How do we create more scholarships and funding for undocumented students?” If we’re really designing, or we really want to have, a university that serves all, shouldn’t we commit ourselves to enrolling all students who we admit and making it possible for them to attend? 

    Then the question is, how you raise money, how you distribute that money, how you create scholarships. The University of California often takes great pride in bringing in large chunks of money for research projects and, for example, spends years talking about and invests mounds of money in Aggie Square in Sacramento for research. … Why not work to create more funding for all students, including undocumented students? Why not think carefully about your tuition increases at various points in time, and what impacts it has on the people that you say you want to enroll in the university?

    I want to talk to you about AB 2586. The first Cal State board of trustees meeting I attended was in July, and there was some discussion about this bill. The trustees were asking staff to brief them on what they think of this bill. The gist was, ‘We see this as risky. We see this as potentially putting us on a collision course with the federal government, where we would open ourselves up to litigation. What do you think about that approach?

    Johnson: I think it’s a cowardly approach. It’d be like the university saying “We’re not going to weigh in on the civil rights movement because it’s controversial politically, and it’s risky to do so, and we’re not going to move forward because we’re afraid of getting sued.” 

    It’s funny, but (former UC President) Janet Napolitano could have taken the same position, saying “We’re not going to challenge the rescission of DACA, don’t want to alienate the federal government, which gives a large amount of money to the University of California. We’re just going to sit on our hands and let these DACA recipients be poorly treated.” …

    I’m an attorney. I was dean of the (UC Davis School of Law) for 16 years. Attorneys are always going to tell you there are risks. There are also risks driving to the grocery store, but we still go to the store. So I don’t buy that risk assessment argument, and I think that this is the time for universities that are truly committed to these issues to show their commitment to these issues.

    Why should CSU and why should the UC prioritize helping undocumented students to get a college degree?

    Kidder: Both my data analysis as well as my personal experience as a university administrator working with lots of undocumented students confirms my conviction that this is a very talented pool of young people in California. If their hopes and dreams are allowed to flourish in California, it benefits all Californians, and I mean that both in an economic sense and in a larger democratic sense.





    Source link

  • Following your roots, faith and a special diet in college

    Following your roots, faith and a special diet in college


    I’ve disavowed potatoes, carrots, onions, garlic, radish and beets. 

    Growing up as a Jain, I never ate these root vegetables or had second thoughts about my faith and this practice. At home, my mom prepared authentic Jain Gujarati meals with rotli (flatbread), daal (lentil soup), bhaat (rice) and shaak (vegetable curry). We found Jain-friendly restaurants in the Bay Area, and while traveling abroad, we microwaved meals in our hotel room and carried ready-to-eat foods. 

    It was always possible for me to follow my faith-based diet, until I enrolled in Cal Poly San Luis Obispo as a freshman two years ago. Suddenly, I would be forced to eat from a meal plan, cook in a communal dorm kitchen or find suitable off-campus dining options.

    Little known outside of India, Jainism is an ancient religious faith whose central tenet is ahimsa, or nonviolence toward all living beings. Jains traditionally do not consume animal products such as meat, eggs and honey, nor root vegetables, in accordance with this principle to avoid harming organisms living in the soil. 

    Some may perceive the Jain diet to be a list of limitations. However, it is meant to be the opposite. In fact, it has empowered me to make more mindful and compassionate choices when it comes to my lifestyle and consumption. 

    Being so closely connected to and influenced by the Bay Area’s Jain community, my faith has now become an integral aspect of my background, culture and identity, and is the reason behind my commitment to the Jain diet throughout college. 

    As I prepared to leave for Cal Poly in September 2022, I was unsure of how I would be able to find Jain food as a freshman on a meal plan. I decided to contact campus dining before starting school and, to my surprise, they responded swiftly. After exchanging preliminary emails discussing my unique dietary needs, we came up with a plan. 

    I met with Kaitlin Gibbons, a registered dietitian for the campus dining program, and we created a specialized meal plan, rotating between four dishes each week. This included pasta, stir-fry, a veggie wrap and quesadillas. She also introduced me to the chefs and kitchen staff who prepared my food as I picked it up every day.  

    Cal Poly works with students who have food allergies, gluten intolerance, follow vegan or vegetarian diets or who, like me, have faith-based diets. 

    “I (work) one-on-one with students with dietary restrictions to assist in empowering them to self-manage their dietary choices on campus, allowing them to actively participate in the college dining experience,” Gibbons said. 

    To meet the diverse needs of students, Gibbons collaborates with executive chefs like Chris Dunham and culinary teams to offer inclusive meal plans. 

    Of course, my limited range of meals meant that, unlike my peers, I could not make spontaneous lunch or dinner plans to grab food at just any eatery. I also had a number of leftover dining dollars because I couldn’t purchase most other food/snack options. To use up my dollars, I had to frivolously buy granola bars or random candies from the campus market. 

    As a result, I stocked up on snacks, homemade dehydrated foods, and brought cooking ware like an Instant Pot to make quick meals in my dorm’s kitchen.

    Nevertheless, I am grateful to Cal Poly’s dining team and to Kaitlin for understanding and accommodating my dietary needs; however, this is not the case for all students on other campuses.

    My friend Arushi Shah is a biomedical engineering sophomore at the University of California Riverside, and she similarly follows the Jain tradition of avoiding root vegetables. 

    Shah said that during her first year in college, she was not on a meal plan because her college refused to accommodate her diet and offer suitable options. 

    “I wished they could make at least one to two dishes for me,” Shah said. 

    Instead, she found creative alternatives to prepare food in her dorm all year long. This included taking dehydrated meals from home, packing non-perishables and storing frozen food in her fridge. 

    “I actually asked my mom to make me instant food items where I just add hot water and it’s ready,” Shah said. “Other times I would go upstairs to my suite kitchen and make easy dishes that didn’t require a lot of meal prep.” Some of the meals she made included sandwiches, dosa and fried rice. 

    If you are in Shah’s position, she suggests “learn how to cook if a kitchen is available, and learn how to do very simple things that don’t require much time and small amounts of ingredients.” 

    Transitioning to college is challenging, especially while navigating dietary restrictions and advocating for your needs. To take the first step, get in touch with your school’s dining program, and relay your dietary needs to them. Preferably, you can reach out before committing to a school as accommodations may not always be guaranteed. As awareness of various faith-based dietary customs grows across colleges, we can hopefully become more inclusive in how we serve our students.

    •••

    Riya Parekh is a third year political science major concentrating in pre-law at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo and a member of EdSource’s California Student Journalism Corps.

    The opinions in this commentary are those of the author. We welcome guest commentaries with diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.





    Source link

  • UC, Cal State, community colleges should work together to boost transfer rates, auditor says

    UC, Cal State, community colleges should work together to boost transfer rates, auditor says


    The Transfer and Reentry Center in Dutton Hall at UC Davis helps transfers get acclimated to their new environment.

    Credit: Karin Higgins/UC Davis

    Few students who intend to transfer from California’s community colleges do so successfully. To reverse that trend, the state’s public college systems will need to work collaboratively.

    That’s the finding of a report released Tuesday by the California State Auditor, which, at the direction of the state Assembly’s Joint Legislative Audit Committee, examined the state’s community college transfer system. 

    Only about 1 in 5 students who entered community college between 2017 and 2019 and intended to transfer did so within four years, the audit found. Rates were even lower for Black and Latino students, as well as for students from certain regions of the state, including the Central Valley.

    Many students struggled to navigate what critics call a complex transfer system in California, with variations in transfer requirements across the University of California and California State University systems, the audit found. 

    The report recommends that UC and CSU work with the community college system to streamline the transfer process. UC should consider widely adopting the associate degree for transfer (ADT) model that is already in place at CSU, and the systems should also share more data, according to the audit’s recommendations. The Legislature could also step in and appropriate funding to help CSU and UC better align their transfer requirements.

    Complexity leads to low transfer rates

    Students wishing to transfer often face obstacles that prevent them from getting to a four-year university. If students are considering multiple four-year universities for transfer, that often means a different set of requirements for each.

    For example, the auditor reviewed six potential four-year campuses to which a community college student studying computer science could transfer: UC Berkeley, UC Santa Barbara, UC San Diego, CSU San Marcos, San Diego State and Stanislaus State. 

    The course requirements vary greatly across the four-year campuses. UC San Diego and San Diego State require potential transfer students to complete a course in intermediate computer programming, whereas the other four campuses do not. UC San Diego is also the only campus to require an additional calculus course. Meanwhile, that campus does not require students to take differential equations, but UC Berkeley and UC Santa Barbara do.

    The audit calls out the ADT as a promising model at CSU, but even that has shortcomings, the report notes. The ADT, created in 2010, is a two-year degree that is no more than 60 credits and is fully transferable to CSU.

    Although completing the ADT guarantees a student admission into CSU, it does not guarantee students admission to a specific major campus. That’s a problem, the audit notes, because transfer-intending students are more likely to enroll if they’re admitted to their preferred program.

    UC, meanwhile, has not adopted the ADT at all and instead relies on its own transfer programs, such as the transfer admission guarantee. That program does admit students to specific campuses and majors, but not all campuses participate in the program, and for those that do, some majors are excluded. UC’s three most selective campuses — Berkeley, Los Angeles and San Diego — are the three that do not offer the transfer admission guarantee.

    Among the transfer-intending students who entered community college between 2017 and 2019, 21% transferred within four years and less than 30% did so within six years.

    Among Black students, between 16.1% and about 17.3% successfully transferred within four years for each cohort. For Latino students, between 14.5% and 15.6% in each cohort transferred in that time frame. That compares to more than 28% of white students in each cohort and as many as 30% of Asian students. 

    There were also differences depending on a student’s location.

    The audit found that community colleges in the San Francisco Bay Area and San Diego regions, for example, had higher transfer rates than colleges in the Central Valley, Inland Empire and northern parts of the state.

    “One factor contributing to this difference may be the distances between community colleges and CSU and UC campuses in those regions. Students are more likely to transfer to a nearby university for a variety of reasons, including challenges associated with relocating,” the audit states.

    That’s true for students at Lassen Community College in northeastern California, according to an administrator there. The administrator told auditors that “proximity is a major barrier” for transfer-intending students. The closest CSU or UC campus is Chico State, which is still more than a two-hour drive. In fact, about three-quarters of students who did transfer from Lassen went to an out-of-state university.

    Streamlining transfer 

    The report offers several recommendations to lawmakers and the public college systems that could streamline the transfer process.

    Auditors recommend that lawmakers consider providing funding to the colleges to align requirements and make the ADT more widely accepted across the state. 

    The community colleges and the four-year systems could also do their part to improve the ADT. For the community colleges, that means analyzing why certain community colleges don’t offer the ADT for some majors. CSU, auditors recommend, should do the same for campuses that don’t accept the ADT for certain majors and then determine whether their reasons make sense.

    UC should either widely adopt the ADT model or, for campuses unwilling to do that, ensure that their transfer options “emulate the ADT’s key benefits for streamlining course requirements,” auditors say. Last year, Gov. Gavin Newsom did sign Assembly Bill 1291 to create a pilot program at UCLA in which students beginning in 2026-27 will get priority admission if they complete an associate degree in select majors. The pilot will eventually expand to more campuses, though some students and advocacy groups criticized the legislation because it won’t guarantee students admission to their chosen campus.

    The audit also recommends better data-sharing between the three systems. 

    The community college system could share data with UC and CSU about students who intend to transfer, which UC and CSU could use to better tailor their advice to those students. 

    Additionally, UC and CSU could share more data with the community colleges about the students who successfully transfer, which could help the community colleges better evaluate their transfer efforts and determine which ones are most effective.

    Sonya Christian, chancellor of the community college system, said in a letter responding to the audit that the system looks forward to working with UC, CSU and lawmakers to implement the report’s recommendations, but said there could be challenges, including with data-sharing.

    Christian said consistent and timely data remains a “persistent challenge” for the system because of its decentralized nature, which requires each of the 73 local community college districts to individually report data to Christian’s office. 

    “The lack of a common data platform hampers our ability to collect timely and reliable data on transfer rates and gaps and hinders our ability to be able to accelerate transfer for the students of California through real-time data sharing with four-year system and institutional partners,” she said.

    But, Christian added, she has made it a priority since becoming chancellor last year to improve those processes and “let the data flow.” 

    “I look forward to carrying forward recommendations around improvements to our data, research, and system-wide policy leadership,” she added.





    Source link

  • My anxiety as a teacher rises with every school shooting

    My anxiety as a teacher rises with every school shooting


    Students at Clairemont High School in San Diego participate in a national school walkout in 2018 to demand gun control — almost two decades after Columbine.

    David Washburn / EdSource

    “Four dead in shooting at Georgia high school, 14-year-old suspect in custody.” The ABC News headline blasts across my Apple Watch.

    I am in the middle of teaching ninth graders how to draw inferences to support an interpretation of Roald Dahl’s “Lamb to the Slaughter.” They’re captivated by housewife Mary Maloney’s stoic demeanor as she covers up her violent retaliation against her husband. I pause midstory to read the headline to myself, and without reacting, go back to modeling annotations as we uncover how Mary gets away with murder. The students are engaged, but I struggle to keep my own mind focused on the lesson, knowing classes are now canceled in another school, this time in Georgia.

    Afterward, I sit at my desk surveying my classroom. I mentally map out safety spots, rehearsing scenarios for a lockdown. I wonder, “What will I do if we are at lunch? Or if there is a shooting between passing periods?” My thoughts teeter between precautionary mental plans and prayers of relief: t wasn’t us. I imagine many teachers, administrators and parents around the country are breathing that same sigh; thank goodness it wasn’t my classroom, my colleagues, my students, my child. 

    The cry for gun control and stricter safety measures seems to fade in the quiet period after a shooting, with little to no change after the national mourning. My anxiety as a teacher takes a hit every time we revisit this repetitive headline. It is personal and desperately frustrating to grapple with school shootings time and again. Amid the helplessness I feel in the aftermath, I start to think of ways to help my students and colleagues navigate through this repeated collective trauma. What can we do, within our community power, to process these tragedies?

    Upon hearing that the shooter is 14 years old, my initial reaction is that school districts need to prioritize regular emotional check-ins for both students and staff. The research on the importance of social and emotional learning is clear: student perceptions of school safety and inclusion significantly improve with this support.

    The age of the Georgia shooter underscores the urgency of this idea; an intentional emphasis on mental health in schools as a proactive measure can be instrumental in identifying those who may be struggling with psychological challenges. What violence markers were observed beforehand? How could this have been prevented? This is a challenging balance to navigate: ensuring that schools do not overstep in identifying potentially violent individuals while also teaching emotional intelligence as a preventive measure for students to handle stress. While fostering social and emotional learning within school curriculums cannot entirely eliminate the risk, mandating this is a proactive, researched step toward school safety. 

    School personnel also need proper professional development on how to handle trauma. When we see signs of stress, what do we do? We know students now, more than previous generations, buckle more frequently under emotional loads that impact their ability to learn, and teachers often feel ill-equipped to respond. We need structured systems of correspondence when we notice signs that someone — student or colleague — is struggling. Just as school safety plans are mandatory, there is a need for trauma-response systems and appropriate annual training. 

    One issue that has repeatedly surfaced in my classroom is the significant impact cyberbullying and social media have on today’s teenagers. How has technology hindered our efforts to keep students focused and, more importantly, to keep them safe? How has living in a virtual world affected students’ ability to navigate real-life interactions? While I recognize that school violence existed long before every teenager had a cellphone or access to social media, I can’t help but suspect a link between the rise in school-related violence and the fact that much of children’s social interaction now takes place in an impersonal, virtual environment.

    As we respond emotionally to the shooting, the uncomfortably large elephant in the classroom is the urgent need for systemic change. Apalachee, Georgia, has been added to the list of communities grappling with the pain of government inaction. In the aftermath, schools across the nation are managing trauma response and reviewing their safety procedures, hoping to withstand a potential repeat event on their own campuses.

    Wanting students and faculty to come home safely from school should not be a political issue; it is a basic expectation. The overwhelming responsibility for student safety falls on me and my colleagues to find creative ways to ensure our own safety. Instead, this pressure should fall squarely on our elected officials. While we wait for legislative action, we map our modes of escape, pay heed to the emotional toll these events have on our school communities, and pray fervently that we don’t ever experience our own versions of “Lamb to the Slaughter.” The shooting in Georgia is a reminder to check our own locks and security measures in case we become the unlucky next.

    •••

    Emily Garrison is an English teacher in Northwest Arkansas. She is a Teach Plus Senior Writing Fellow.

    The opinions in this commentary are those of the author. We welcome guest commentaries with diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.





    Source link

  • Strengthen auditing to curb charter school fraud, a new task force recommends

    Strengthen auditing to curb charter school fraud, a new task force recommends


    San Diego County Attorney Sumner Stephan announces in 2019 the indictment of 11 individuals affiliated with A3 Education, including founders Sean McManus and Jason Schrock, who subsequently took a plea deal.

    Credit: Office of the San Diego County District Attorney

    A court-commissioned task force formed in the aftermath of a massive fraud by an online charter school network issued recommendations Wednesday to thwart the recurrence of similar operations.

    State Controller Malia Cohen, who chaired the task force, said that the 20 recommendations for reforming the system for auditing schools should apply not only to charter schools but also school districts and county offices of education.

    The report urges significant improvement in training, selecting, overseeing and disciplining school auditors as well as an expansion of their responsibilities. 

    “With the education of our children at stake and significant state investments of taxpayer money in education, it is crucial that all schools be held to the highest level of integrity, accountability, fiscal compliance, and transparency,” Cohen wrote in an introduction to the 50-page “Audit Best Practices for Detecting and Curtailing Charter School Fraud.”

    There were multiple failures that allowed the Academics Arts and Action Education (A3) charter network of 19 schools to pilfer tens of millions of dollars in public funding. The multi-agency task force focused on strengthening the auditing process, because a system of detecting and quickly responding to possible fraud relies on effective annual reviews by professional, independent auditors, who are overseen by Cohen’s department.   

    San Diego Superior Court Judge Robert Longstreth signed an order in September 2023 establishing the multi-agency task force after observing how A3 exploited weaknesses in the auditing system. A3 fraudulently enrolled participants in its summer athletic programs into the charter school’s academic program so that it could claim average daily attendance funding, even though the students received no education services. Additionally, private schools and other programs that participated in the enrollment scheme received a portion of the state’s per-student funding while A3 pocketed the rest, according to the report.

    In 2021, Sean McManus and Jason Schrock, A3’s founders, pleaded guilty to a conspiracy to commit theft of public dollars for the phantom enrollments. In return for serving four years on house arrest, the executives agreed to repay $37 million.

    The State Controller’s Office and the San Diego County District Attorney’s Office, which prosecuted A3, led the task force. It also included divergent perspectives from the California Charter Schools Association, the California School Boards Association, and the California County Superintendents.  

    Many of the recommendations will require legislative action and additional funding to implement, as noted in the report in a section titled “Obstacles and Solutions.” While charter school advocates and district authorizers agree in principle that there’s a need for changes, they have disagreed in the past over specifics of added regulation. The report called for collaboration among those with differing perspectives.

    This is the third significant report this year that looked at the multiple breakdowns of oversight responsibility and holes in transparency laws that failed to spot flagrant violations by A3 and now-defunct Inspire Charter Schools, a home-school charter network that could not account for tens of millions of dollars in state funding.  

    The first report was a joint effort of the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) and the Fiscal Crisis Management Assistance Team, a state fiscal oversight agency known as FCMAT. The second was by the anti-fraud task force of the California Charter Authorizing Professionals, a nonprofit association for school districts and county offices of education.

    Both groups made similar recommendations for stronger oversight, including demanding that nonprofit charter school boards scrutinize third-party contracts for conflicts of interest. 

    The authorizers’ task force called for establishing a statewide Office of Inspector General to investigate and prosecute financial fraud in school districts, community colleges and charter schools.

    The LAO-FCMAT report also called for limiting small school districts’ ability to authorize large-scale charter networks. Not only do they lack the knowledge and capacity to monitor complex operations, but the oversight fees they can charge, sometimes reaping millions of dollars yearly, could create an incentive to look the other way. Dehesa School District, with one school in the San Diego County foothills, chartered three A3 and two Inspire charter schools.

    The failure of an audit to catch A3’s “exponential” fluctuations in enrollment was one area that the report said needed fixing.  It recommends tracking enrollment and attendance changes monthly; had this been in place, an auditor may have identified a potential for fraud.

    Other recommendations

    Qualifying, certifying and evaluating accountants: Currently, only 22 certified public accounting firms — less than 0.1% of licensed accounting firms in California — audit 93% of school districts and charter schools, according to the report. As a result, the report stated, “The poor performance of any one CPA firm may significantly impact the quality and reliability of school audits.”  And those auditing schools have not been required to have any training specifically on auditing schools. 

    The report recommends:

    Requiring 24 hours of training on school auditing before an auditor can be listed among certified public accountants eligible for school auditing.

    Requiring the State Comptroller’s Office to do a quality review after an auditor’s first school audit.

    Adding conditions for deleting a poorly performing auditor from the state’s auditor eligibility list.

    Frequent turnover in a charter school’s auditors can be “a red flag” for a subpar auditor or a district with possible misconduct. The report recommends monitoring for these trends.

    Conflicts of interest: Some cases of charter fraud have revealed collusion between vendors with close personal ties to charter leaders, self-dealing by charter CEOs and other conflicts of interest that could lead to fraud or waste. Some boards of directors have failed in their legal responsibility to identify and prohibit them. 

    The report recommends financial disclosure statements for the top five highest-paid school employees, the 25 highest paid vendors, and disclosure statements for charter schools’ contracts with charter management organizations.

    The report reiterates a best practice that some auditors apparently did not follow: To preserve independence, an auditor should never allow a school district or charter school to determine which financial transactions and enrollments should be sampled for an audit.

    Some of the most visible cases of abuse have occurred with non-classroom based charter schools. Those are charter schools in which less than 80% of instruction occurs in person.  

    Consisting of hybrid charter schools and home schools, they comprise about a quarter of the state’s 1,300 charter schools and nearly 40% of charter school students. Exclusively online charter schools are only a small piece.

    Non-classroom-based charter schools are also increasingly popular with parents seeking scheduling flexibility and more options in their children’s education. 

    In 2019, the Legislature imposed a two-year moratorium on approving new non-classroom-based charter schools and has extended it twice.

    Thus, there will be pressure on the Legislature to consider the auditing and oversight reforms that the three reports have suggested before the moratorium ends in 2026.





    Source link

  • New Cal State Bakersfield president says campus should see Kern County’s education problems ‘as our own’

    New Cal State Bakersfield president says campus should see Kern County’s education problems ‘as our own’


    A portrait of Vernon B. Harper, Jr.

    Vernon B. Harper Jr.

    Courtesy of California State University, Bakersfield

    Vernon B. Harper Jr. is scratching the word “interim” from his nameplate at California State University, Bakersfield. 

    Harper, who has served as the university’s interim president since the end of 2023, was named CSUB’s permanent president on Wednesday, the second day of a Cal State board of trustees meeting dominated by discussions about the financial pressures facing the university system. The system is projecting a $400 million to $800 million budget gap in 2025-26 as state leaders signal their intention to reduce funding for CSU.  

    CSU Bakersfield has been able to prevent students from feeling the effects of a reduced budget, Harper said, buoyed by growing enrollment this school year. His focus is on making what he calls a “pivot towards the community” — expanding programs to boost the number of Kern County high school graduates and community college transfer students who enroll at CSUB. The Central Valley is growing rapidly but has lower college attainment than the rest of the state. 

    Harper envisions the university taking a more active role alongside local K-12 schools to increase the number of students who meet A-G requirements, the coursework that makes students eligible to start college at a Cal State or University of California campus. Only 36% of Kern County high school graduates completed such coursework in the 2022-23 school year, according to state education data, compared with 52% of high school graduates statewide. 

    “That’s the real transition that the institution is making. It is to accept those problems as our own,” Harper said. “We’re partnering with our K-12 providers and making sure that we’re doing absolutely everything we can to raise that statistic. We’re not just going to sit back passively and watch our community go in a direction that we don’t want it to go.”

    One example of the work Harper hopes to get done: CSUB’s teacher education program is forming a task force with the Kern County Superintendent of Schools Office and the Kern High School District in a bid to increase the number of students who are A-G qualified, he said.

    The campus is also experimenting with ways to get local students thinking about college even before they leave middle school. It recently started a pilot program with four middle schools and four high schools in which students as young as 12 will receive notices that they are guaranteed admission to CSUB so long as they meet A-G requirements. 

    “We’ve seen that with young people, especially in under-resourced populations, their vision is truncated by their circumstance,” Harper said. “Whatever we can do, we have a responsibility to do, to extend that vision as far as it can go.”

    The past decade has seen rising graduation rates at CSUB. Among first-time, full-time freshmen who entered Cal State Bakersfield in 2017, 49% graduated in six years, an almost 10 percentage-point increase from 2007. But the school has not caught up to some of its Cal State peers. Systemwide, the six-year graduation rate for the same group of students in the fall 2017 cohort was roughly 62%. 

    Harper said that the intervention that seems to have the most impact on improving graduation rates is pairing students with an academic adviser who works with them throughout their time at CSUB, guiding them through unforeseen challenges, like switching into a course that fits the student’s work schedule.

    “As much as we can invest in that activity, the more positive outcomes that we (see),” he said.

    The university is also experiencing some of the same longstanding graduation equity gaps that exist across California higher education. The six-year graduation rate among Black students who entered CSUB as freshmen in the fall 2017 cohort was 40%, lagging Asian, Latino and white students. 

    Harper has backed several CSUB initiatives to attract and retain Black students. Harper said that community college students at Bakersfield College who participate in the Umoja program, which includes courses on African American culture as well as mentorship and academic counseling, will find they can continue receiving similar support now that CSUB has its own Umoja program for transfers. The campus plans to open a Black Students Success Center in the spring and has already hired a group of faculty members whose work is focused on minoritized communities, Harper said.

    Harper’s tenure as CSUB’s permanent president begins at a moment when the California State University system is raising financial alarm bells.

    Cal State leaders are anticipating that a $164 million increase in revenue from tuition hikes will not be enough to alleviate other stresses on its budget. The system expects that state general fund revenue will drop nearly $400 million, according to a September budget presentation, and that $250 million in compact funding will be delayed. The university system also faces rising projected costs, including for basics it can’t avoid like increased health care premiums and utilities expenses.

    Speaking at a Sep. 24 meeting, trustee Diego Arambula said the university system has “almost been too effective at making these cuts year over year over year” without explaining to legislators the impact those budget reductions are already having on students.

    “We are doing everything we can to make them as far away from students, but a hiring freeze is a hiring freeze, and that does impact students if we’re not bringing someone into a role that we know is important,” Arambula said. “It’s impacting our staff, who are taking on more to try and still meet the needs of the students who are here.”

    CSUB officials last spring said they planned to cut the school’s 2024-25 net operating budget by about 7%, citing a decline in enrollment and increased salary and benefits costs. The school had less than a month of funding in its rainy day fund in 2022-23, slightly less than the net operating budget across the CSU system at that point.

    But Harper said enrollment this year is up between 4% and 5%, driving tuition growth that is alleviating some budget pressure. The campus also has made temporary cuts to areas that aren’t student-facing, he said, such as professional development. 

    “We’ve been able to really, really shield any negative effects on students,” Harper said.

    Harper succeeds Lynnette Zelezny as president. He was previously Cal State Bakersfield’s provost and vice president for academic affairs. He will receive a salary of $429,981 and a $50,000 housing allowance.

    Harper was first hired at CSUB in 2016. Prior to his arrival at Cal State Bakersfield, he worked at West Chester University of Pennsylvania, Wilkes University of Pennsylvania and the State Council for Higher Education of Virginia.

    He holds a bachelor’s degree in communication from Pennsylvania State University, a master’s degree in rhetoric from West Chester University and a doctorate in human communication from Howard University. He served eight years in the U.S. Army Reserve.





    Source link

  • School boards association lawsuit claims provision in California budget deal is unconstitutional

    School boards association lawsuit claims provision in California budget deal is unconstitutional


    Credit: Flickr

    This article was rewritten and reposted on Sept. 27 to clarify that the lawsuit’s aim is to prevent underfunding of Proposition 98 in future years. The earlier version misstated that the lawsuit asserted the current state budget as enacted also violated the funding law.

    Although the 2024-25 state budget shields school districts and community colleges from funding cuts, the California School Boards Association is suing the Newsom administration over a provision that the school boards association claims is unconstitutional.
     
    The change to the Education Code would deny schools money they would be entitled to under some conditions in future years, setting a dangerous precedent, CSBA argued in a lawsuit filed this week.
     
    The school boards association is asking the Superior Court in Sacramento County to invalidate that section in the education budget bill. CSBA argues it violates the letter and spirit of Proposition 98, the formula that determines how much of the General Fund must be allocated to schools and community colleges.
     
    The Department of Finance inserted the little-known statutory wording  into the budget trailer bill in the final days of the legislative session in June, with no discussion or notice.  It was not mentioned in the budget analysis that legislators reviewed before passing the budget.
     
    “CSBA’s defense of voter‐approved Proposition 98 is nonnegotiable, as is the obligation of the state to follow the Constitution that governs it,” CSBA President Albert Gonzalez, a Santa Clara Unified school board member, said in a statement.
     
    On behalf of Newsom, the California Department of Finance refuted CSBA assertions in a series of exchanges with legislative leaders in July. All of its actions were legal, Joe Stephenshaw, director of the Department of Finance, wrote.
     
    The lawsuit would not affect this year’s budget, which took effect July 1. However, the tense negotiations and controversial revenue maneuvers preceding the budget’s passage were very much on the minds of Newsom’s financial advisors when they wrote the statutory change that the school boards association opposes.
     
    It pertains to the unusual challenge that Newsom and the Legislature found themselves in trying to write the 2023-24 budget. Because of the devasting impacts of winter storms and floods, the federal government and the state pushed back the tax collection deadline from April to November 2023. Without having tax receipts in hand, Newsom and the Legislature made a best-guess estimate of what Prop. 98 minimum guarantee would be for 2022-23. As it turned out, the minimum guarantee was $8.8 billion less than what they appropriated.
     
    Rather than cut funding for school districts and community colleges after the 2022-23 fiscal year had ended and money had been spent, Newsom left what he called “an overappropriation” alone. Two of the main formulas to determine the Prop 98 minimum guarantee incorporate what the state spent on schools in the prior year. So, the over-appropriation in 2022-23 would increase the amount that the state owed schools in 2023-24, 2024-25 and beyond. his initial 2024-25 budget in January, Newsom proposed allowing schools to keep the $8.8 billion for 2022-23 but to exclude the money when calculating the Prop. 98 minimum guarantee for 2023-24 and 2024-25.
     
    CSBA and other education groups opposed that move. They said that dropping Prop. 98 below what the Legislature had approved violated the initiative that voters passed in 1988.
     
    In most years, the Legislature’s Prop. 98 appropriation becomes the base amount for the following year, then is adjusted for enrollment growth or decline, inflation, or increases in economic growth per student. That assures that Prop. 98 minimum funding guarantee will grow over time, CSBA said.
     
    Faced with strong opposition from a coalition of school groups, Newsom eventually gave up on lowering the minimum guarantee. But still short of funding to pay for it, Newsom turned to a series of multiyear maneuvers: suspending the minimum guarantee in 2023-24, deferring funding from one year to the next, draining the rainy day fund, and creating a multi-billion dollar debt that the General Fund, not future Prop. 98 revenues, would pay back over several years. All of these tactics were legal.

    Newsom tries again
     
    But Newsom and Finance officials hadn’t given up on the idea of revising the Prop. 98 minimum guarantee downward when tax revenues come up short. They quietly inserted language into the trailer bill to limit the state’s funding vulnerability in the event of another tax filing delay in the future.
     
    It says that when the filing deadline for personal and corporate income taxpayers is pushed back at least two weeks, then the state will revert to the previous year’s minimum guarantee. After the new taxes are collected, the state will recalculate the new Prop. 98 minimum and determine the difference between the original and revised Prop. 98 minimum. The “excess” appropriation won’t be able to raise the Prop. 98 minimum that year and for subsequent years, the statute says.  
     
    CSBA criticized this “unlawful provision” for “artificially lowering the baseline upon which future years’ school funding is established.” The lawsuit argues that voters passed it to assure a “stable and predictable source of funding that is not subject to political influence or manipulation.”  

    “When the Newsom administration proposed a budget maneuver in January to exclude some school funding from the Prop 98 formulas, education groups opposed it because it was unconstitutional. The budget language passed this summer to allow a similar manipulation of the guarantee in the future would be similarly unconstitutional,” said Rob Manwaring, senior policy and fiscal advisor for the nonprofit Children Now and an advisor on the lawsuit.
     
    Delays in the tax deadline as occurred in 2022 and laid out in the provision will presumably be rare, but CSBA said the integrity of Prop. 98 must be preserved.
     
    The Legislature has no authority to amend the wording of Prop. 98 – only voters can do that, CSBA argued.
     





    Source link

  • Q&A: How new wellness coaches expand mental health support in California schools

    Q&A: How new wellness coaches expand mental health support in California schools


    Credit: Alison Yin/EdSource

    Early this year, the California Department of Health Care Access and Information introduced the new Certified Wellness Coach program, aimed at improving the state’s inadequate capacity to support growing behavioral and mental health needs in California’s youth. 

    The program is part of the historic five-year, $4.6 billion state-funded Children and Youth Behavioral Health Initiative, of which the Department received $278 million to recruit, train and certify a diverse slate of mental health support personnel, or certified wellness coaches, in schools and community-based organizations across the state. 

    Dr. Sharmil Shah, assistant deputy director of behavioral health for HCAI.
    Sharmil Shah, assistant deputy director of the California Department of Health Care Access and Information.

    According to Sharmil Shah, assistant deputy director of the California Department of Health Care Access and Information, certified wellness coaches work under a care team of licensed clinicians and professionals in pre-K, K-12 and post-secondary school settings. Most coaches have relevant associate or bachelor’s degrees in social work and human services and are trained in nonclinical behavioral health support. 

    Shah says the program strives to become a long-term response to a long-term crisis in California — that rates of anxiety and depression among the state’s children shot up by 70% between 2017 and 2022, and that following the COVID-19 pandemic, many adolescents experienced serious psychological distress and reported a 20% increase in suicides. 

    As part of a five-year initiative’s broader push to redefine student success, the program builds on research that behavioral interventions also improve academic performance and attendance in schools. In fact, anxiety, depression and mental health are the top health-related drivers of absenteeism since the onset of the pandemic, according to the Los Angeles Trust for Children’s Health. Simply put, students who feel better do better in school. 

    EdSource interviewed Shah about the new wellness coach program. Her remarks have been edited for length and clarity. 

    Describe the Certified Wellness Coach program. What can young people expect from the new wellness coaches?

    Certified wellness coaches are meant to be an additional, trusted adult on a school campus — whether it’s an elementary school, middle school, high school or a college campus. This is a person that young people can turn to in times of need. Coaches would offer preventive and early intervention services and are intended to support a child or even a 25-year-old before a severe behavioral health need arises. 

    Some of the things that a parent or a child might see are classroom-level presentations, supporting school counselors with [mental health] screenings, individual and small group check-ins, wellness education and referrals to advanced behavioral health providers in times of crisis, among many other services. 

    What are the two types of wellness coaches, and how are their roles different?

    There is a Certified Wellness Coach 1 and Certified Wellness Coach II. The Certified Wellness Coach 1 offers entry-level behavioral health supports, such as structured curriculum, to small groups or classrooms, which are focused on wellness promotion and education, mental health literacy — understanding the language of mental health — and life skills. They also support screenings for young people, connect them to behavioral health resources and professionals. If it becomes apparent that someone has a more significant need for behavioral health services, they’ll do a warm hand-off to a higher level of care.

    The Certified Wellness Coach II provides a little more in-depth prevention and early intervention support to children and youth. They provide structured curriculum for groups or classrooms that’s focused on enhancing awareness of common behavioral health conditions like depression, anxiety. The Certified Wellness Coach II can help young people overcome maladaptive thinking patterns, distraction strategies and emotional regulations, and are able to do higher level interventions than a Certified Wellness Coach 1. 

    To support a mental health screening, a Certified Wellness Coach 1 can give the child some information about it, but they won’t administer the questions. The Certified Wellness Coach II can actually facilitate a screening process, be in the room and get everything set up, but they must still all be under the guidance of a school counselor who has qualifications to administer the screening and ask the questions, for example. 

    Why was it important to implement the program at all levels of schooling — from early education to community college? 

    It’s essential for children and youth to get help earlier on in the continuum of care, especially before a crisis arises. We believe that by supporting them at a younger age, we can provide them with the tools and skills to support their behavioral health and build resilience as they age. Wellness coaches can support youth through all the different changes, not only as related to age, but to life in general. We start at a very young age and then continue to an age where they can actually remember and hold onto the skills that they’ve learned. 

    How did the pandemic shape your vision for the program?

    For students, we saw increased levels of anxiety, depression, social isolation, a disruption in their education, economic difficulties, and, of course, a lot of loss and grief. Children and adolescents lost family members who did not survive the pandemic. From research, we knew that there was already a youth mental health crisis in the state of California. The pandemic exacerbated it.

    One system alone cannot address these challenges, but the school system is where all the kids are. There’s just not enough school personnel to address the need across the state. Through the development of this workforce, we hope that we can complement the incredible work that the educators are already doing by being a partner in their students’ health. Our wellness coaches can focus on social isolation, anxiety, feelings of sadness, and feeling connected and able to talk to somebody. 

    In a 2022 survey, about 55% of teachers said they would retire earlier than planned due to burnout from the pandemic. Could wellness coaches help relieve some of that ongoing burnout?

    I was a PTA president, and I was in those environments in which I saw that there’s a child in the classroom that clearly looks like they need behavioral health services, and the teacher is spending maybe 90% of his or her time on that student, and the rest of the [students] are just kind of running around in circles. The current counselor-to-student ratio in California is about 1 to 464. It’s impossible, and it’s nearly double the recommended ratio. As the staff that spends the most time with students, the burden of supporting student behavioral health often falls on the teacher. That’s just not sustainable. That’s not helpful for the teachers, and they can’t do their job. By adding additional behavioral health professionals on campus, like wellness coaches, we can hopefully alleviate some of that burden and allow teachers to focus on the academic success of their students. 

    How will certified wellness coaches serve youth from multilingual or multicultural backgrounds? Will coaches reflect the demographics and experiences of their school’s student body?

    Equity and effective access to care is a cornerstone of our programs. We have been recruiting diverse candidates to become wellness coaches and making sure that we adequately address cultural responsiveness and humility as part of their training. We have done very extensive marketing and outreach campaigns that use a variety of channels and messaging to get to as many populations as we can, including underserved and underrepresented communities. 

    We also selected our employer support grant awardees, mostly schools and some community-based organizations, based on geographic spread, to make sure that all 58 counties were represented and could hire coaches. And then we also provided special consideration to Title 1 [low income] schools, organizations whose staff speak multiple languages, and organizations that support Medi-Cal students. And then we had two scholarship cycles to support students who wanted to become wellness coaches. We [will support] their tuition and living expenses, especially for those who came from different backgrounds or didn’t have a lot of resources.

    We are also partnering with California community colleges, which offer resources and support for underserved and underrepresented populations to enter the wellness coach system. What we found in our research is that 65% of their students were classified as economically disadvantaged. So we’re already addressing those groups. 

    And as part of our certification requirements, we’re focusing on specific degrees such as social work, human services and addiction studies, which already include cultural responsiveness and cultural humility as part of their key learning outcomes. What we’ve heard anecdotally from a lot of young people is that, “I don’t see myself in the people that are helping me or serving me,” and we want them to feel safe and comfortable with the person that they’re talking to. 

    Where are you in the rollout of the program?

    In February 2024, we launched the certification program for wellness coaches. As of Sept. 17, we have certified 383 coaches, and that number is steadily growing. We’ve done so much outreach and engagement and social media blips and radio ads, because we need to be able to reach the young people where they are. As of August, the Department executed 64 21-month grant awards of $125 million to employer support grants for schools and community-based organizations to hire wellness coaches. That will fund the placement of more than 1,500 certified wellness coaches between this school year and next school year. And then, also, in August, we awarded 99 individuals with scholarships totaling about $2.8 million for those pursuing degrees with which they apply to become a certified wellness coach. 

    How can the program address broader post-pandemic issues such as chronic absenteeism and declining school enrollment?

    We’re hoping that wellness coaches will strengthen young people by providing them with a safe place to share their fears and teaching them the skills necessary to cope with life’s challenges. We believe that equipping them with these skills will decrease absenteeism, help them focus on their schoolwork and also be able to have them integrate themselves into the school environment. Young people with behavioral health conditions are sometimes isolated, bullied, made fun of and may not even like school as a result of all of those things that are going on. If they have a safe place, a safe adult, a safe person that they can talk to about some of the feelings they have, they will be happy to come back to school, look at it as a place of learning and a place to make friends. 

    What kind of challenges do you foresee in keeping the program running and successful?

    Sustainability. Everything runs on the mighty dollar. We are in the final years of the [Children and Youth Behavioral Health Initiative] right now, and we can use those funds to sustain the program for probably another year or two. We are actively partnering with the Department of Health Care Services, and other state departments, to make certified wellness coaches’ services billable through Medi-Cal [and commercial insurance], which will support sustainable financing in our schools [beyond the five-year initiative].

    Extensive research has demonstrated that students who feel like they belong in schools perform better in the classroom and have better rates of attendance. This not only benefits the student, but it also potentially benefits the schools in retaining coaches, as school finances are based in-part on school attendance.

    What kind of feedback have you received about the program?

    I had a student who said, “I didn’t really feel like there were a lot of places to go to, even though they had help available. I didn’t trust people to confide in.” You never want people to feel like they have nowhere to go or that they’re alone. This was a student who would then become a wellness coach. Another student who became a wellness coach said that she didn’t feel there was enough support when kids needed help where she lived. She said, “If I’m struggling, I want to know there’s someone there for me if I genuinely need it.” She said she’s had really hard days, but being able to open up and talk about it makes the world seem a little more colorful. It makes her feel lighter on her feet. 

    We had some parents indicate that wellness coaches are a great way to give back to the community, because they’re giving back to our future, our children. It’s helping them be productive members of society and be the best version of themselves.

    This story was updated for clarity.





    Source link

  • What you need to know to become a teacher in California | Quick Guide

    What you need to know to become a teacher in California | Quick Guide


    Teacher apprentice Ja’net Williams helps with a math lesson in a first grade class at Delta Elementary Charter School in Clarksburg.

    Credit: Diana Lambert / EdSource

    This article, originally published on Sept. 14, 2022, has been updated to reflect changes in state law that impact teacher credentialing requirements in California.

    Over the last decade, Gov. Gavin Newsom and California legislators have poured billions of dollars of state money into special grants and programs to recruit, train and retain educators in order to ease the state’s persistent teacher shortage. Lawmakers have, since the pandemic, also made permanent changes to teacher credentialing requirements to make it easier to become a teacher.

    Teacher candidates have many choices. They can take the traditional route — attend a teacher preparation program and complete student teaching — or they can take part in a residency, apprenticeship or internship program that allows them to complete required coursework while teaching. 

    Residencies

    Prospective teachers can apply for residency programs through a university teacher preparation program that operates in partnership with one or more school districts. During their residency, candidates are paired with experienced teachers for a year of clinical training and are usually paid a stipend.

    Internships

    Teacher candidates can also enroll in a commission-approved district intern program or a university internship program. Both allow candidates who have bachelor’s degrees to teach while they complete their teacher preparation coursework. Instead of being a student teacher, interns are generally the primary teacher in the classroom. They hold intern credentials until they complete the requirements for a preliminary credential. 

    Apprenticeships

    There are also apprenticeship programs that allow teacher candidates to work as a paid member of school staff, while they gain clinical experience and complete their bachelor’s degree and a teacher preparation program. Generally, they receive free or reduced-price tuition.

    Most apprenticeship programs in California are limited to early childhood education, but the state is developing a registered apprenticeship program for K-12 teachers that will greatly expand access. 

    Classified school employee program

    The state also has a California Classified School Employee Teacher Credentialing Program, which offers financial assistance and academic guidance to school staff who want to complete an undergraduate degree and earn a teaching credential. The staff members must work in districts that have been awarded a grant through the state. 

    College students who know they want to be a teacher before completing their degree can select a university that offers an integrated undergraduate program that allows them to complete teacher preparation coursework during their undergraduate education. 

    Choose a teaching credential

    Most California teachers hold one of three basic teaching credentials — multiple-subject, single-subject and education specialist. Multiple-subject credentials are for elementary school teachers, single-subject credentials are generally for middle and high school teachers who teach one subject, and an education specialist credential is for special education teachers. 

    There also is a newly authorized PK-3 early childhood education specialist instruction credential. The credential is intended to meet the need for qualified teachers specially trained to teach preschool through third grade students. 

    But before earning a clear credential, all teachers must first earn a preliminary credential and complete a two-year induction program. The induction program provides additional training and mentorship during the first two years of teaching. Teachers with preliminary credentials who are nationally board certified in either early childhood or middle childhood do not have to participate in induction.

    To earn a preliminary teaching credential, a teacher must have:

    • A bachelor’s degree.
    • Completed an accredited teacher preparation program.
    • Completed 600 hours of student teaching.
    • Been fingerprinted and passed a background check.
    • Taken required tests or completed university-approved coursework.
    • Completed a course or passed a test on the provisions and principles of the U.S. Constitution.
    • Earned a recommendation from their teacher preparation program.

     A preliminary credential is good for five years.

    Tests and their alternatives

    Teachers must prove they have the skills needed to educate students. Before the pandemic, tests were traditionally used to determine if a teacher candidate was ready for a teacher preparation program or the classroom, but new legislation gives them the option to use university-approved coursework or a college degree in most cases. Teacher candidates can check with their teacher preparation program administrator to determine which courses to take or have their transcript evaluated by the Commission on Teacher Credentialing.

    Basic skills requirement

    For years, teachers have been required to take the California Basic Educational Skills Test or otherwise prove they have the basic skills to teach – generally, before they begin a teacher preparation program. The 2024-25 state budget trailer bill has removed the requirement for those who have earned a bachelor’s degree or higher.

    Subject-matter competence

    Teacher candidates are required to demonstrate proficiency in the subject they will teach before they can earn a credential. This has traditionally been done by passing the appropriate tests in the California Subject Examinations for Teachers, or CSET, but teachers can have the option to take coursework or a combination of tests in the CSET and coursework to satisfy this requirement.

    Teacher candidates also can complete a bachelor’s degree in the subject area of the credential they are seeking. A teacher preparation program will evaluate the major to see if it is acceptable, but the Commission on Teacher Credentialing will make the call for candidates who have a degree major that aligns with a statutory single-subject area, and who are applying to the commission directly for credentials, such as those seeking emergency-style permits.

    Reading Instruction Competence Assessment

    The RICA measures how well candidates for multiple-subject credentials and education specialists teach reading. The test is scheduled to be eliminated in 2025 when it will be incorporated into the Teacher Performance Assessment, which requires teachers to demonstrate their ability to teach.

    Performance assessment

    Once a teacher is in the classroom, they are required to complete a performance assessment that demonstrates how well they assess students, design instruction, organize subject matter and perform other skills. There are three assessment models — the California Teaching Performance Assessment, edTPA and Fresno Assessment of Student Teachers. Each requires that teachers take video clips of classroom instruction, submit lesson plans, student work and written reflections on their practice to prove they are prepared to become teachers.

    Special education credentials

    Special education candidates must complete all the basic requirements of other teachers, as well as instruction in one of four areas — mild to moderate support needs; extensive support needs; deaf and hard of hearing, visual impairments; and early childhood special education — to earn a credential in that specialty.

    Out-of-state teachers

    Teachers moving to California must submit their college transcripts and a copy of their out-of-state teaching license, as well as proof they have been fingerprinted to the Commission on Teacher Credentialing. 

    To avoid taking unnecessary tests and training, the commission recommends that applicants submit their score on out-of-state basic skills tests and proof of two years or more of teaching experience.

    Where to apply

    Applications for California-prepared teachers are generally submitted by the teacher preparation program to the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. Out-of-state applicants must submit documents directly to the commission. It generally takes about 50 business days for the commission to process applications. Application fees vary depending on the document, but generally are under $100 each. 





    Source link